DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, the Applicant argues that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is improper because the amended claim recites a specific data-structure control mechanism that groups output candidates by the number of satisfied constraint tokens and maintains a top-candidate pool per group. Rather than an abstract mental process, this explicit search algorithm provides a concrete technical improvement in sequence conversion by successfully reducing search time while simultaneously improving translation accuracy (REMARKS, on page 1 of 5, 5th paragraph – page 2 of 5, 4th paragraph).
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is proper because the newly amended claim 1 is still directed to abstract idea. The patent-eligibility analysis below follows 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence, dated July, 2024 and Memorandum on Subject Matter Eligibility Declarations, dated December 4, 2025.
These activities of claim 1 reflect generating an input sequence that includes constraint information, adding constraint information into the input and producing probability scores for the output words using a model and outputting sequence by performing the constrained search.
Moreover, the newly amended limitation of “grouping output candidates into a plurality of groups based on a number of tokens of the constraint information satisfied by each output candidate; and maintaining a predetermined number of candidates for each group in descending order of the probabilities represented by the output information from the sequence conversion model” is steps of information processing and decision-making — activities that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and that courts/USPTO treat as abstract ideas.
Even though the claim references “model” these are recited functionally, without technical detail about how they are implemented in a non-conventional way.
Applicant’s invention is not technological improvement of the existing, but helping to achieve better human functionality in the field of language processing using a generic computer. Even though the disclosed invention is described in the background as improving computer technology, the claim provides no meaningful limitations such that this improvement is realized. When the claimed system changes the architecture itself—e.g., how information flows, not just what it does—that may satisfy eligibility.
Therefore, the claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. With respect to independent claims 4 and 5, the claims 4 and 5 are similar to claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims 2-3 and 6-7 are also directed to processes which manipulate data which are processes which can be performed by a human and implemented by a generic computer. Accordingly, the limitations of the Claims are not sufficient to add significantly more to improve technological functionality. As such, claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Thus, the rejection is maintained at this time. Please see the rejection below for the whole analysis.
Regarding Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. The amended limitations raise new grounds for rejections and further that the Examiner is therefore applying a new reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong One: The independent claim 4 recites “generating an input sequence with constraint information based on the input sequence and constraint information; generating output information by inputting the input sequence with constraint information to a sequence conversion model; and generating the output sequence by performing a constrained search using the output information such that the output sequence includes the constraint information”.
The limitation of “generating…”, “generating…” and “generating” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a human organizing of activities. More specifically, a person can process the steps of generating an input sequence that includes constraint information, adding constraint information into the input and producing probability scores for the output words using a model and outputting sequence by performing the constrained search.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as performing a generic computer function and being used as an applying) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, there additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B — Claims Do Not Recite an Inventive Concept That Transforms the Mental Process into Patent-Eligible Subject Matter
The claims add generic, well-understood computer components (memory, processor, and computer) and broadly recite use of “sequence conversion model” without describing any specific, unconventional structure, algorithmic detail, data structure, or system architecture that provides a concrete technical improvement in computer functionality.
Applying Alice step two and relevant Federal Circuit precedent:
The recitation of conventional computer components (memory and processor) performing routine functions does not supply an inventive concept.
The mere invocation of “sequence conversion model” without particularity does not demonstrate an unconventional machine or technique or a specific improvement in computer technology.
The claims recite high-level, result-oriented steps (e.g., “generating”, “grouping” and “maintaining”) that describe mental processes rather than specific technical means for performing those processes.
Because the claims lack limitations that tie the mental-process steps to a particular way of achieving a technological improvement (for example, a novel model architecture, specialized data representation, unique training regimen that yields demonstrable technical performance gains, a specialized streaming/decoding pipeline that reduces latency by a quantifiable amount, or hardware/software co-design), the additional elements do not transform the mental processes into significantly more.
Therefore, claims 1, 4 and 5 fail to recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter.
With respect to dependent claims 2-3, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 6, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 7, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
D. Conclusion — Rejection
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception (mental processes) and failing to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEONG-AH A. SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5933. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-3PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre-Louis Desir can be reached at 571-272-7799. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Seong-ah A. Shin
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2659
/SEONG-AH A SHIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights